On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:44:51PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: >> I can't really add a lot here as I haven't tried it yet. I think >> pure-64 is ideal, but from what little I've looked into it, that is just >> not possible.....yet, not to mention that it breaks the LSB goal. > > Maybe "not possible" for your particular use case. I've been using > pure64 on one of my boxes for a long time. (No proprietary plugins - > I've long since dropped realplayer, flash either works with gnash > (usually, old flash) or it's no loss to me, and I don't need to access > other proprietary formats.) On ppc64 I do stick with multilib, because > the box performs like a dog, and compiling 32-bit ppc is sometimes > less difficult than 64-bit (a mac G5 has to have a 64-bit kernel).
Ken has it exactly right. Since you're making a custom system, it's entirely up to you whether it's worth supporting multiple architectures. The LSB, on the other hand, is trying to foster a standard environment for people to target Linux applications to. Multiarch makes that standard environment more flexible. Whether you want your custom system to support this flexibility is entirely up to you and will most likely be influenced by whether you find it necessary to support 3rd party binaries that only target a specific architecture. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
